BALASUBRAMANIAN AND ORS.versusRAMAIAH THONDAMAN

                                                                               ...,
A                     BALASUBRAMANIAN AND ORS.
                                  v.
                         RAMAIAH THONDAMAN

                            DECEMBER 14, 2007
B
          [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

                                                                               ·>(

         Land laws:
      Claim for title over property on ground ofpurchase from patta
c holders-Held:   Not tenable as patta holders themselves conceded
    before settlement officer that patta was wrongly granted to them-
    Revenue records show that suit property was throughout enjoyed by
    defendant and her husband by paying kisht-Even otherwise, grant
    ofpatta cannot be equated with document of title.
D
        The plaintiff-respondent filed suit for declaration of his title and   'f
                                                                                   ..
  for injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his
  possession and in alternate for possession of the suit property. The
  plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the suit property from one
E 'R'  and his daughter 'N', who were pattaholders. The case of
  defendant was that the settlement patta was wrongly issued for the
  suit lands to 'R' and 'N' and the sale in favour of plaintiff was by
  fraud as the village karnam was brother of plaintiff who assisted his
  brother in bringing the sale deed and when the defendant's husband
F came to know about the wrong issuance of patta for suit property,            '
  he filed application before the settlement authorities for transfer of
  patta in his favour. 'R' appeared before the Assistant Settlement
  Officer and conceded that he and his daughter 'N' had no title or
  possession of the suit property and the patta for the suit property
G was  wrongly granted to them and consented for the transfer of
  registry for the suit property.
                                                                               ~

        Trial Court decreed the suit. First appellate Court set aside the
    decree. On appeal, High Court restored the order of trial Court.
    Hence the present appeal.
H                                    756
          BALASUBRAMANIAN v. RAMAIAHTHONDAMAN                         757


           Allowing the appeal, the Court                                   A
            HELD: 1.1. The plaintiff has pressed into service Ex. A-1 sale
       deed to the effect that he purchased the suit property from 'R' and
       'N'. As the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit
       property, it was the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove his case
       by placing acceptable evidence. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not B
       examined his vendors to show how they got title to the property sold
       under Ex. A-1. On the other hand, the defendant by placing notice
       Ex. B-19 issued by vendors of the plaintiffs contended that the suit
       property was in possession of the defendant and not with the vendors
       of the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court on perusal of Ex. B-9 C
       came to the conclusion that the suit property was enjoyed by the
       defendant and her husband throughout by paying kisht for the same.
       The evidence further show that the said 'R' and his daughter never
       executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the same was
       obtained on account of old age of 'R'. It was also highlighted that D
"-•
  y    'N' was also not well versed with the transactions of this nature. In
       the proceedings for a grant ofRyotwari patta, the Settlement Officer
      had issued a notification calling for objections from the villagers. In
      the said proceedings, Settlement Officer conducted suo motu enquiry
      in respect of 370 cases by verifying the revenue records and E
      prepared Form 5 statement which refers the name of the defendant's
      husband. This factual information strengthen the case of the
      defendant that her husband got title to the suit property. A petition
      was filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer for rectification
      of the mistake in grant ofpatta in favour of the plaintifrs vendors. F
      Only in this context, 'R' appeared in person and informed the officer
      that he has no objection to' change the patta in respect of the suit
      property in favour of the defendant's husband. Even otherwise, the
      grant of patta cannot be equated to that of a document of title. At
      the most the patta proceedings and the ultimate order by the G
      competent authority granting patta may be used as a piece of
      evidence to show that the subject-matter property is with the grantee.
      Considering all these material aspects particularly the action of the
      plaintiffs vendors in informing the Assistant Settlement Officer
      about the wrong decision in granting patta in their favour and H
    758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

                                                                                  -;
A considering the oral and documentary evidence with regard to the
  same, the lower Appellate Court rightly concluded that the Assistant
  Settlement Officer has passed an erroneous order which could not
  confer any right or title to the plaintiff's vendors.
                 [Paras 7 and 8] [760-E-H; 761-B-C; F-H; 762-k,"C)
B      1.2. The stand of the defendant that since at the relevant time
  plaintiff's brother was a village karnam, the plaintiff got the sale deed
  by utilizing his brother's service as well as taking advantage of old
  age of plaintiff cannot be ruled out. All these factual aspects were
  duly considered by the lower Appellate Court. The High Court
c committed error in setting aside the judgment merely on the basis
  of Ryotwari patta when the same was proved to be obtained by
  mistake by the authority concerned. In fact, the High Court did not
  consider Ex. B-19 notice sent by the vendors to plaintiff wherein they
  admitted in categorical terms that patta was wrongly granted to
D them. [Para 9] [762-D-F]
                                                                                    '   .
  2002.
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 452 of                       '
        From the Final Judgment and Order dated 22.3.2001 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 45 of 1985.
E
         B. Sreedhar, I. Madhavi and K. Ram Kumar for the Appellants.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. The Legal Representatives of the
                                                                                   t
F deceased defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
  22.03.2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second
  Appeal No. 45 of 1985 allowing the same filed by the respondent-herein
  have preferred the above appeal.
         2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
G
  The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title and
  for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession
                                                                                  ·'<
                                                                                        ,
  and enjoyment of the suit property or in the alternative for possession of
  the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged
H absolutely to Ramasamy Konar and his daughter Nachammai. The patta
          BALASUBRAMANIAN v. RAMAIAH THOND AMAN                               759
                    [P.SATHASIVAM,J.]
      was in their names and they were in enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff A
      purchased the suit property from the said Ramasami Konar and his
      daughter for Rs.12,300/- on 11.09.1978. From the date of purchase, the
      plaintiff was in possession. The defendant's husband purchased some of
      the property from the said Ramasami Konar. Since the defendant with·
      their followers caused disturbance to the plaintiff in the matter of enjoyment B
      of the suit property, the plaintiff filed the suit.
            3. The case of the defendant as stated in the written statement was
      that the settlement patta had been wrongly issued for the suit lands to
      Ramasami Konar and Nachammai without proper enquiry. The grant of
      patta in favour of them cannot confer any title to the suit property as the C
      same is not a document of title. The plaintiff is debarred in claiming title
      to the suit property by virtue of the patta in favour his vendors. The sale
      in favour of the plaintiff was brought about by fraud, misrepresentation
      and by undue influence. In any event, Ramasami Konar and his daughter
      had no right and title to the suit property. When the defendant's husband D
      Chelliah Pillai came to know about the wrong issuance of patta for the
      suit property in favour ofRamasami Konar and his daughter, he filed an
      application before the settlement authorities for transfer of patta for the
      property in his favour. The said Ramasami Konar appeared before the
      Assistant Settlement Officer and conceded that he and his daughter E
      Nachammai had no title or possession of the suit property and the patta
      for the suit property was wrongly granted to him. He consented for the
      transfer of registry for the suit property. The defendant and her
      predecessors in title have and had been in possession of the suit properties
      for more than the statutory period adversely openly and uninterruptedly. F
      The defendant and their children have acquired title to the suit properties
      by adverse possession. The village kamam is the brother of the plaintiff.
      Hence with the assistance of his brother, the plaintiff had brought the sale
      deed and filed the suit. He denied the claim of the plaintiff with regard to
      possession.                                                                  G
"'·         4. The trial Court decreed the suit on 15.10.1982. Aggrieved by
      the same, the defendant filed appeal in A.S. No. 146 of 1982 before the
      lower Appellate Court. By judgment dated 05.08.1983 on consideration
      of the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court allowed the
                                                                                    H
    760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

                                                                                  ~
A appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and
  dismissed the suit. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed a Second Appeal
  No. 45 of 1985 before the High Court. The High Court accepted the
  case of the plaintiff, set aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court
  and allowed the second appeal. In the meanwhile, the defendant passed
B away and his LRs filed the above civil appeal before this Court. The only
  respondent though duly served notice from this Court has not chosen to
  contest the appeal.
         5. We heard Mr. B. Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the
    appellants and perused the relevant materials and annexures filed along
c   with this appeal.
          6. The points for consideration in this appeal are:-
           (a) Whether the High Court was justified in upsetting the factual
               findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court?
D
           (b) Whether the plaintiff has established his case for grant of
                decree as claimed?
        7. In support of his case, the plaintiff has pressed into service Ex.
  A-1 sale deed dated 11.09.1978 to the effect that he purchased the suit
E property from Ramasami Konar and Nachammai. On the other hand, it
  is the case of the defendant that her husband alone was in possession of
  the suit property for a long time and plaintiffs vendors have no title to
  the suit property at any point of time. The plaintiff apart from examining
  himself as PW 1 also examined One Velusami as PW 2 who is an attestor
F of Ex. A-1 Sale deed. Apart from these two persons, one Veerappa Pillai
                                                                                  ..'
  has been examined as PW 3. As rightly observed by the lower Appellate
  Court inasmuch as the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit
  property it is the boUPden duty of the plaintiff to prove his case by placing
  acceptable evidence. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not examined his vendors
G to show how they got title to the property sold under Ex. A-1. On the
  other hand, the defendant by placing notice Ex. B-19 issued by vendors          1
  of the plaintiffs i.e. Ramasami Konar and Nachammai contended that the                '
  suit property was in possession of the defendant and not with the vendors
  of the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court on perusal of Ex. B-9 came
H to the conclusion that the suit property was enjoyed by the defendant and
              BALASUBRAMANIAN v. RAMAIAH THONDAMAN                               761
                        [P. SATHASIVAM,J.)
           her husband through out by paying kisht to the same. It was also highlighted A
           before the courts below that patta was wrongly given to Ramasami Konar/
           Nachammai/vendors of the plaintiff. This material aspect was stated before
           the Assistant Settlement Officer and in fact they informed the said officer
           that they had no objection for change of patta in the name of the
           defendant's husband. In fact in Ex.B-9 the defendant has admitted that B
           he was not aware of the grant ofpatta by the Settlement Officer. The
           evidence further show that the said Ramasami Konar and his daughter
           never executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the same was
           obtained on account of old age ofRamasami Konar. It was also highlighted
           that the said Nachammai was also not well versed with the transactions c
           of this nature. It is not clear when the vendors of the plaintiff mentioned
           several material aspects in Ex. B-19, the plaintiff had not taken any action
           and not even denied the same by sending reply. In those circumstances,
           based on the relevant and acceptable materials, the lower Appellate Court
           arrived at a conclusion that the sale deed Ex. A-1 was obtained by fraud, D
.......   ·undue influence and mis-representation.
     f
                 8. In the earlier paragraphs, we have already stated that the
           plaintiffs vendors were not in possession of title deed to the suit property
           except adangal extracts and patta in the name ofRamasami Konar. No
           doubt he also filed proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated E
          24.02.1969 as Ex. A-7 which shows that rough pattahad been issued in
          favour ofRamasarni Konar and Nachammai. In this aspect, it is relevant
          to refer to the factual discussion by the lower Appellate Court. In the
          proceedings for a grant ofRyotwari patta, the Settlement Officer had
          issued a notification calling for objections from the villagers. As rightly F
          pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, the name of the
          defendant's husband found in Form 5. It is brought to our notice that in
          the said proceedings, Settlement Officer conducted suo motu enquiry in
          respect of 370 cases by verifying the revenue records and prepared Form
          5 statement which refers the name of the defendant's husband. This factual G
          information strengthen the case of the defendant that her husband got title
          to the suit property. Based on the various material/information a petition
          was filed (Ex. B-3) on 29.04.1969 before the Assistant Settlement Officer
          for rectification of the mistake in grant of patta in favour of the plaintiffs
          vendors. Only in this context, Ramasami Konar appeared in person and H
    762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.


A infonned the officer that he has no objection to change the patta in respect
  of the suit property in favour of the defendant's husband. Even otherwise,
  the grant of patta cannot be equated to that of a document of title. At the
  most the patta proceedings and the ultimate order by the competent
  authority granting patta may be used as a piece of evidence to show that
B the subject-matter property is with the grantee. Considering all these
  material aspects particularly the action of the plaintiffs vendors in informing
  the Assistant Settlement Officer about the wrong decision in granting patta
  in their favour and considering the oral and documentary evidence with
  regard to the same, the lower Appellate Court rightly concluded that the
C Assistant Settlement Officer has passed an erroneous order which could
  not confer any right or title to the plaintiffs vendors i.e. said Ramasami
  Konar and Nacharnmai.
        9. The stand of the defendant that since at the relevant time plaintiffs
  brother was a village karnam, the plaintiff got the sale deed by utilizing his
D brother's service as well as taking advantage of old age of plaintiffs cannot
  be ruled out. All these factual aspects were duly considered by the lower
  Appellate Court which is a final Court of appeal. While such is the position,
  the High Court placing heavy reliance on Ryotwari patta alone interfered
  with the well-considered judgment of the lower Appellate Court. We are
E satisfied that all the details as adverted to by the lower Appellate Court
  have not been considered by the High Court and committed an error in
  setting aside the judgment merely on the basis ofRyotwari patta when the
  same was proved to be obtained by mistake by the authority concerned.
  In fact, the High Court did not consider Ex. B-19 notice sent by the
F vendors to plaintiff wherein they admitted in categorical terms that patta
  was wrongly granted to them. In such circumstances, the High Court could
  not have allowed the second appeal based only on patta proceedings which
  were found to be wrongly obtained.
       10. In the light of the above conclusion, we set aside the judgment
G and decree of the High Court dated 22.03.2001 made in Second Appeal
  No. 45 of 1985 and confirm the judgment and decree of the lower
  Appellate Court dated 05.08.1983 passed in Appeal Suit No. 146 of
  1982. The civil appeal is allowed. No costs.
H D.G.                                                       Appeal allowed.